Being a sucker for scifi shows of course I had to watch this....show. I realize that a commercial paid for television production will be created to appeal to a broad audience to make money. But I have a short list of a few things that made my head hurt when watching the first two episodes.

Future prisons are a breeze to escape from it seems and super secure doorways into highly desirable "clean-green" past are just as easy.
Didn't the writers at least watch Jurassic Park(1993) on how fences work or don't work. Of course dinos are too stupid I guess to slide underneath fences like the cool teenagers. Double fencing and double gateways are unnecessary.
Earth has this "toxic" atmosphere but airlocks on homes and apts never occurs to the builders of them.
No training of individuals BEFORE they go back into the past. What if the people go back in time and then realize they just will not touch raw meat or are just too dumb to learn how to do anything useful for the camp.
Of course future ATVs have no built-in location devices, restricted user controls, or even doors on the smaller ones(dinos are too stupid to climb in remember)
Also the 42 minute problem solving super device got old with Star Trek. Cobble this with that and poof... problem solved.
Also 130 years into the future and no changes in language or clothes even the backpacks look like LL Bean.
And the ABC Family scripting of family interaction had me gagging.
Am I being too mean?

The Backroad Astronomer

2011-Oct-05, 04:06 PM

Most location devices use satelittes in orbit and they probably haven't got to putting those in space. The only reason this will survive is that for the audience that likes it there isn't much else on at the time or just waiting to watch House.

R.A.F.

2011-Oct-05, 05:23 PM

Am I being too mean?

No...not at all.

My biggest "gripe" with the show is it sends the wrong message. Mess up the planet, and instead of trying to solve the problem, they run away from it into the past.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-05, 05:28 PM

Does it even address why they picked the Cretaceous period to travel to, and not, you know, a period of time when there weren't giant predators?

Or why time travel is the preferred option over O'Neill colonies, or just cleaning up Earth's pollution? Time travel. I guess they're operating under the Back to the Future conceit that time travel could be accomplished with a small machine and 1.21 jiggawatts.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-05, 05:45 PM

Does it even address why they picked the Cretaceous period to travel to, and not, you know, a period of time when there weren't giant predators?

Or why time travel is the preferred option over O'Neill colonies, or just cleaning up Earth's pollution? Time travel. I guess they're operating under the Back to the Future conceit that time travel could be accomplished with a small machine and 1.21 jiggawatts.

When you're talking about a magic handwave premise, one hand is as good as the other. To use your example, the 1.21 gig could merely be to "prime the pump" of a zero-point generator, and the "Flux Capacitor" could be an exotic-matter reactor. As to why the Cretaceous, maybe there's some limitations as to what eras they can reach, and that was the least objectionable slot open to them. The others might have been in periods unlivable to humans.

Note that I'm not defending the show as entertainment-- haven't seen it. But there aren't really any written rules for human time travel.

schlaugh

2011-Oct-05, 06:04 PM

Does it even address why they picked the Cretaceous period to travel to, and not, you know, a period of time when there weren't giant predators?

(Show producer sputters, huffs and puffs and then says)... "Why...why...because we need dinosaurs! Who wants to watch time travel to the late Carboniferous? All they had then were ugly, waddling half-land / half-sea creatures! And dragonflies! Who wants to watch a show about dragonflies? Did you ever see a character in a show get eaten by a dragonfly??"

parallaxicality

2011-Oct-05, 07:11 PM

They didn't pick it. They discovered the crack in time and used it.

Rhaedas

2011-Oct-05, 07:35 PM

In defense, they aren't and likely can't send everyone. It looked like using this crack in time was a energy costly thing to do. And we don't know what steps had been done to try and fix the Earth, only that conditions were worsening quickly. Quite frankly, had they had a choice, seems to me that 60-63 millions years back would be a lot easier for settlers. I think the 30 sec explanation about the probe and how it proved they were in a new time stream was good enough to suspend belief.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-05, 08:34 PM

They didn't pick it. They discovered the crack in time and used it.

Well, that's a better premise, then.

I still can't buy it over O'Neill colonies to escape a polluted Earth. But that wouldn't have given the shows producers dinosaurs that can eat people.

From what I've read about the show, it's basically a replacement for Lost. It's not about science fiction, it's about putting people in a situation where they'll fight with one another. It's Cube with dinosaurs. Yawn.

mike alexander

2011-Oct-05, 08:45 PM

I quit after about an hour. Teenage angst is not my cuppa. When I realized the annoyed teenager wasn't going to be eaten, it was time to do something else.

Rhaedas

2011-Oct-05, 09:12 PM

I still can't buy it over O'Neill colonies to escape a polluted Earth. But that wouldn't have given the shows producers dinosaurs that can eat people.

We don't know if there was other measures also taken. Terra Nova is maybe just one extreme of several attempts of human survival. I think it's an assumed fact that that Earth is too far gone for humans to be able to live there much longer. Maybe there's a spin-off potential there. "Meanwhile, back in the future..."

From what I've read about the show, it's basically a replacement for Lost. It's not about science fiction, it's about putting people in a situation where they'll fight with one another. It's Cube with dinosaurs. Yawn.

Aren't most sci-fi stories about the people and their conflicts? The sci-fi part is usually just a backdrop to make scenarios possible. The success would be to make the interactions and conflicts believable, not contrived.

As long as they don't end the series with it all being just a hallucination by the first explorer, right before he regain consciousness and gets eaten.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-05, 10:17 PM

We don't know if there was other measures also taken. Terra Nova is maybe just one extreme of several attempts of human survival. I think it's an assumed fact that that Earth is too far gone for humans to be able to live there much longer. Maybe there's a spin-off potential there. "Meanwhile, back in the future..."

I think you're giving TV producers too much credit.

Look up SeaQuest DSV, an excellent sci-fi show from '93 with some really cool ideas, and in its second season it was turned into something like Star Trek: TNG underwater, and it just kept getting more and more ridiculous until it was killed in '96.

Aren't most sci-fi stories about the people and their conflicts? The sci-fi part is usually just a backdrop to make scenarios possible. The success would be to make the interactions and conflicts believable, not contrived.

That's true, but IMO the premiss of Terra Nova is contrived. I don't buy that humans would let the Earth get so bad--we're already changing our ways. But the real topper is the time period. You know it was picked so there'd be dinosaurs to eat people. That's the only reason. If it wasn't, why not have the crack to any other time? Ten million years after the KT impact would've been cool--audiences would get to see new creatures. Three million years ago and modern humans could have interactions with early ancestors. Or during one of the ice ages, and they live near the equator. Or during the Cambrian. Or during the Triassic. No, they picked the Late Cretaceous, when the biggest, baddest dinosaurs lived.

I really like the first Jurassic Park film, it's a good movie. Like all good ideas in fiction, they're milked until they're dead, then milked some more.

R.A.F.

2011-Oct-05, 10:48 PM

...the real topper is the time period. You know it was picked so there'd be dinosaurs to eat people. That's the only reason. If it wasn't, why not have the crack to any other time? Ten million years after the KT impact would've been cool--audiences would get to see new creatures.

What would be cooler, and deliciously ironic, have them arrive at a time a year before the KT impact.

They could end the show with a bang. :)

Garrison

2011-Oct-05, 10:52 PM

Being a sucker for scifi shows of course I had to watch this....show. I realize that a commercial paid for television production will be created to appeal to a broad audience to make money. But I have a short list of a few things that made my head hurt when watching the first two episodes.

Future prisons are a breeze to escape from it seems and super secure doorways into highly desirable "clean-green" past are just as easy.
Didn't the writers at least watch Jurassic Park(1993) on how fences work or don't work. Of course dinos are too stupid I guess to slide underneath fences like the cool teenagers. Double fencing and double gateways are unnecessary.
Earth has this "toxic" atmosphere but airlocks on homes and apts never occurs to the builders of them.
No training of individuals BEFORE they go back into the past. What if the people go back in time and then realize they just will not touch raw meat or are just too dumb to learn how to do anything useful for the camp.
Of course future ATVs have no built-in location devices, restricted user controls, or even doors on the smaller ones(dinos are too stupid to climb in remember)
Also the 42 minute problem solving super device got old with Star Trek. Cobble this with that and poof... problem solved.
Also 130 years into the future and no changes in language or clothes even the backpacks look like LL Bean.
And the ABC Family scripting of family interaction had me gagging.
Am I being too mean?

This is the kind of stuff that annoys me; elements built into the plot that make the shows universe appear to be peopled with idiots, it sounds like someone said 'lets do a show with people living alongside dinosaurs' and that's about where plot development stopped.

Krel

2011-Oct-06, 01:11 AM

Seriously, what would be your reaction if someone came at you with a two foot long leech? On seeing that mouth and teeth, any excess oxygen in my system would be burned-up by all of the adrenalin my system would be producing. You remove the leech by pulling it off? Have these people never seen "The African Queen", or a jungle movie? You just can't pull a leech off, not with out damaging the victim. The leech is feeding and does not want to come off. How much blood does a two foot long leech consume? What about any diseases in it's system?

Their weapons appear to be military weapons, and those usually are not the best type to use against animals. The calibers are too small, and the bullets aren't designed for large animals. But they also appear to be trying not to kill the dinos. They are afraid of unbalancing the ecology, which is reasonable.

David.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-06, 01:27 AM

What would be cooler, and deliciously ironic, have them arrive at a time a year before the KT impact.

They could end the show with a bang. :)

Would it be possible to not know what year it is if careful observations were made? The precise distance the Moon is from the Earth (though without mirrors on the Moon perhaps this wouldn't be workable), noting the location of the Earth's axis within the precession circle it wobbles around, what the constellations look like (surely there would be known stars in the sky, and their relative positions would reveal the approximate time by running the movements backwards from the location they're in in the future).

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-06, 01:38 AM

Their weapons appear to be military weapons, and those usually are not the best type to use against animals. The calibers are too small, and the bullets aren't designed for large animals. But they also appear to be trying not to kill the dinos. They are afraid of unbalancing the ecology, which is reasonable.

Do the weapons look futuristic? I'm sure in 130+ years small caliber guns will pack more of a punch than they do now. Ours do more than those from the 1880s, and we're nowhere near the limits that physics sets.

They don't shoot in life or death situations? That's moronic! A few lost animals here or there won't unbalance an ecology, it has to be systematic.

Krel

2011-Oct-06, 03:40 AM

Do the weapons look futuristic? I'm sure in 130+ years small caliber guns will pack more of a punch than they do now. Ours do more than those from the 1880s, and we're nowhere near the limits that physics sets.

They don't shoot in life or death situations? That's moronic! A few lost animals here or there won't unbalance an ecology, it has to be systematic.

They appear to be trying to avoid killing the large dinos, perhaps because they are afraid of what would happen if the big predators disappeared from an area. In the pilot, they were not trying to hit the large dinos with the sonic weapons, just drive them away.

Military small arms have a different design philosophy, and international restrictions than hunting weapons. Military ammo is designed for the most part to disable, not kill. The design philosophy being, that if you kill someone, then they are dead. But if you wound someone, then you are tying up that person. The personnel required to transport the wounded person. And the resources required to care for the wounded person. Hunting rifles, and ammunition are designed to put the animal down as quickly as possible. You don't want to have to track down a wounded animal, or worse have it attack you.

We have weapons that could ruin the day for a large dino. A couple of .50 caliber machine guns on the towers would have certainly dropped the large dinos. Ma Duce was originally designed as an anti-tank weapon. I doubt that the dino's hide is tougher than a few inches of steel armor.

Most of the pistols, and rifles in the show are made from Nerf guns, with very few, if any live fire weapons. Movies and tv shows have gotten very good at cgi weapon's fire effects.

David.

vonmazur

2011-Oct-06, 04:08 AM

I thought it was about an old Chevy mid sized car with a stupidly chosen name (No Va)....But it was a rip-off of an old Scifi story "Mastadonia" from the 50's....I really hate the current media!!

Dale

stutefish

2011-Oct-06, 04:35 AM

Do the weapons look futuristic? I'm sure in 130+ years small caliber guns will pack more of a punch than they do now. Ours do more than those from the 1880s, and we're nowhere near the limits that physics sets.

Well, this is totally tangential, but...

First, there's the chemical limit, right? If it's gunpowder, aren't we pretty much already at the optimal formulation for the chemical reaction that drives the bullet? Unless you're positing handwavium as an ingredient...

And then there's materials science: The "punch" of the bullet can only be as much as the gun can handle. Otherwise the barrel bursts, and the shooter gets a firing pin in the eye as his gun explodes in his hand.

Finally, physics actually sets some pretty harsh limits: An ultra-light, ultra-strong gun could pack a ridiculously powerful punch, even with today's technology. But it would be ridiculously expensive. Not only that but the recoil would make the thing impractical anyway. Physics sets a limit on the shock a person's wrist and shoulder can absorb before shattering. Making a gun that exceeds this limit is no more pointful 130 years from now than it is today. Unless we're assuming that 130 years from now everybody will have much stronger wrists and shoulders. But we should note that while small arms have gotten a good deal "punchier" since the 1880s, human wrists and shoulders appear to be about the same as they ever were. And probably ever shall be.

DukePaul

2011-Oct-06, 07:54 AM

Here are a few more things that made me pound my head on the table. (I'm moving that table because it took a beating.)

2th episode: three people died but the great leader failed to tell anybody to just maybe be a little more careful and watchful.
Oh in talking about the great leader in his first speech to the newcomers we get the "future man is bad and evil" speech and before he started I knew he was going down that predictable and trite path.
Notice how well fed and filled out the future humans were? Obviously little sunlight and toxic atmosphere didn't much effect their waistlines.
Did any of you notice when the newcomers first got there, they had to cross a tiny two log slick bridge with some of them barely making it across. After five years of being there you would think they would build a better bridge and did all their equipment come that way too?
What good are the teenagers? Since they seem to steal vehicles and precious supplies and force others to come looking for them all the time.
The ATVs... Jurassic driving codes require all drivers to drive fast and slide to a stop. And if a dinosaur chases you must drive to the only gate and scream "it's following me". Also since the gate closes top to bottom the entire width allows anything wide as a house to enter it until it fully shuts.
Also the camp planners never considered flying reptiles or other unknown flying things to be any problem to the tiny helpless group. Remember all things in the past are stupid animals unlike the big brain humans.
For your information it was 85 million years ago down an alternate time line and an apparent rip-off of the British show Outcasts which I didn't like either.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-06, 11:10 AM

Does it even address why they picked the Cretaceous period to travel to, and not, you know, a period of time when there weren't giant predators?
The giant predators mean it's the only period not overrun with hippie tourists trying to get in touch with whatever, it's not that they didn't choose to go there, they just got eaten really fast.
Just my guess.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-06, 11:20 AM

Finally, physics actually sets some pretty harsh limits: An ultra-light, ultra-strong gun could pack a ridiculously powerful punch, even with today's technology. But it would be ridiculously expensive. Not only that but the recoil would make the thing impractical anyway. Physics sets a limit on the shock a person's wrist and shoulder can absorb before shattering. Making a gun that exceeds this limit is no more pointful 130 years from now than it is today. Unless we're assuming that 130 years from now everybody will have much stronger wrists and shoulders. But we should note that while small arms have gotten a good deal "punchier" since the 1880s, human wrists and shoulders appear to be about the same as they ever were. And probably ever shall be.
Well, if you believe that, I give you the Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeifer_Zeliska_.600_Nitro_Express_revolver) as counter example to show that you're mistaken in a fundamental assumption, namely that people are rational when it comes to guns.

Apart from the physics bit that that lower weight projectile mean you can give the projectile more kinetic energy for the same recoil.

novaderrik

2011-Oct-06, 11:29 AM

haven't seen the show- hopefully never will- but my guess is that someone in charge of making the show knew of a production company that was really good at making cgi dinosaurs and wanted to make that into a tv show.. test audiences didn't like it as a remake of the "Dinosaurs" tv show from the early 90's, so they put the time travel thing in there and decided to wedge in some environmental issues just because why not, right?..
as to why they don't want to kill any of the dinosaurs- if they kill the wrong one, then the small mammals that are scurrying about might not get properly killed off in such a way to allow the survivors to evolve into humans...
this takes place about 60 million years ago, eh? this tells me that when they inevitably get cancelled, they will end it all with the KT impactor hitting the earth, which brings us back to (what was probably)the original idea of doing a remake of the "Dinosaur" show from the early 90's, because-(***spoiler alert***)- that show ended with all dinosaurs going extinct..

Noclevername

2011-Oct-06, 11:43 AM

this takes place about 60 million years ago, eh? this tells me that when they inevitably get cancelled..

In negative five million years?

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-06, 02:23 PM

First, there's the chemical limit, right? If it's gunpowder, aren't we pretty much already at the optimal formulation for the chemical reaction that drives the bullet? Unless you're positing handwavium as an ingredient."

Or a new fuel. Perhaps future guns will combust hydrogen, or methane, to propel the bullet. Nothing says gun powder cartridges are the end. Look up "Metal Storm" technology for another take on how to make guns.

And then there's materials science: The "punch" of the bullet can only be as much as the gun can handle.

Metals aren't as strong as they're going to get. They're still making them better. Also, why can't the metals be reinforced with other, stronger materials? Metals aren't the strongest forms of matter, you know.

But we should note that while small arms have gotten a good deal "punchier" since the 1880s, human wrists and shoulders appear to be about the same as they ever were. And probably ever shall be.

Cybernetic enhancement? Artificial bodies? Who says we'll live in these meat bags forever?

Noclevername

2011-Oct-06, 08:45 PM

Cybernetic enhancement? Artificial bodies? Who says we'll live in these meat bags forever?

If they could do that, they wouldn't need to worry about unbreatheable air. Or being eaten by dinos.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-06, 09:38 PM

If they could do that, they wouldn't need to worry about unbreatheable air. Or being eaten by dinos.

I was really only addressing the issue of more powerful, smaller guns with that one. Not the show's universe.

If you want small guns with low recoil that can kill big biological things, have poisoned bullets.

eburacum45

2011-Oct-08, 03:25 AM

Would it be possible to not know what year it is if careful observations were made? The precise distance the Moon is from the Earth (though without mirrors on the Moon perhaps this wouldn't be workable), noting the location of the Earth's axis within the precession circle it wobbles around, what the constellations look like (surely there would be known stars in the sky, and their relative positions would reveal the approximate time by running the movements backwards from the location they're in in the future).

Interesting problem. I think that sixty-five million years ago there would be no stars that could be reliably identified; even if they did see a known star, it would be effectively impossible to identify it with certainty. You couldn't use pulsars or anything like that either- too short-lived.

Quite possibly the best indicators would be the length of day (that is quite well-known for the Cretaceous, I think); the oxygen level and carbon dioxide level (maybe only useful as a rough indicator) and the location of the continents (that would be tricky to do without mapping the whole Earth I suppose).

One possibility would be the location of the various globular clusters in orbit round the Galaxy; they would move slowly enough to be identifiable, I think, assuming you could tell one from another. But the gravity field of the Milky Way might be too irregular to make this a useful indicator.

Probably the best indicators would be the biota- plant-life, animal life- which might be the most accurate timekeeper of all. The Earth/Moon distance is a good one too- this could be measured using the Moon's diameter.

eburacum45

2011-Oct-08, 03:31 AM

This one-way time-portal to the distant past trope sounds like the one in the Saga of Pliocene Exile by Julian May
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_Pliocene_Exile

Van Rijn

2011-Oct-08, 07:15 AM

One possibility would be the location of the various globular clusters in orbit round the Galaxy; they would move slowly enough to be identifiable, I think, assuming you could tell one from another. But the gravity field of the Milky Way might be too irregular to make this a useful indicator.

That is interesting. On the astronomy side, they could look at more distant galaxies, so they could focus on the solar system's motion about the Milky Way relative to the "fixed" galaxies. There are limits to accuracy, but given the solar system's velocity, they could work it out to a fair degree, I think.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-08, 09:24 AM

Position of all major planets should in combination be enough to identify time for a long time both back and forward, I can't remember if the chaotic effects are enough to make that unworkable on that time frame though.

eburacum45

2011-Oct-08, 08:29 PM

Now I come to think about it further, binary stars should still be identifiable even after millions of years. So if you find a binary star with the exact characteristics of the Alpha Centauri system, or Alpha Geminorum, or Xi Scorpii, then you will be reasonably certain that you are looking at a familiar star. By estimating the movement of such a star over time it might be possible to measure the time difference reasonably accurately.

Only a few familiar binary stars might still be visible, but that should be enough.

Garrison

2011-Oct-08, 10:55 PM

Finally, physics actually sets some pretty harsh limits: An ultra-light, ultra-strong gun could pack a ridiculously powerful punch, even with today's technology. But it would be ridiculously expensive. Not only that but the recoil would make the thing impractical anyway. Physics sets a limit on the shock a person's wrist and shoulder can absorb before shattering. Making a gun that exceeds this limit is no more pointful 130 years from now than it is today. Unless we're assuming that 130 years from now everybody will have much stronger wrists and shoulders. But we should note that while small arms have gotten a good deal "punchier" since the 1880s, human wrists and shoulders appear to be about the same as they ever were. And probably ever shall be.

The solution to that is powered armour exoskeletons, which we're half way towards now.

ravens_cry

2011-Oct-09, 07:02 AM

Or recoilless guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle).
Using my off the cuff calculations (using the present rate the moon is receding from the earth per year and multiplying by 85 million) the moon would be about 10% closer. I do not believe that would be nearly enough to make the moon look as big as they showed in the first episode.

DukePaul

2011-Oct-09, 08:11 AM

I would prefer a different approach, capture a few goodhearted earnest singing religious teenagers from the future Earth and release them into the wild to scare off the nasty heretic dinos. The perfect self-replicating non-lethal bio-weapon with no kick or recoil.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-09, 03:08 PM

I would prefer a different approach, capture a few goodhearted earnest singing religious teenagers from the future Earth and release them into the wild to scare off the nasty heretic dinos. The perfect self-replicating non-lethal bio-weapon with no kick or recoil.
See #22 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/121995-Terra-Notever?p=1942350#post1942350).

Rhaedas

2011-Oct-09, 03:40 PM

Or recoilless guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle).
Using my off the cuff calculations (using the present rate the moon is receding from the earth per year and multiplying by 85 million) the moon would be about 10% closer. I do not believe that would be nearly enough to make the moon look as big as they showed in the first episode.

You're probably close, but isn't the rate that the Moon moves out changing by a small degree? Maybe not enough in the last millions of years to make a huge factor, but I thought it was slowing as it goes out.

ravens_cry

2011-Oct-09, 05:22 PM

You're probably close, but isn't the rate that the Moon moves out changing by a small degree? Maybe not enough in the last millions of years to make a huge factor, but I thought it was slowing as it goes out.
If it is, my Googling hasn't shown it. But even if it means the moon would be a few hundred kilometres closer then my calculations, it wouldn't be enough to make it that big.

Jim

2011-Oct-09, 09:44 PM

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

Actually, I can give the show that one. Most folks are unfamiliar with the moon's recession anyway, and making it even larger simply makes it easier to point it out.

ravens_cry

2011-Oct-10, 03:38 AM

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

Actually, I can give the show that one. Most folks are unfamiliar with the moon's recession anyway, and making it even larger simply makes it easier to point it out.
Ah, so it's a "good lie". Not true, but a good stepping stone to truth. Like the "mini-solar system" view of the atom.

Jim

2011-Oct-10, 11:49 AM

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

ravens_cry

2011-Oct-10, 02:27 PM

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).
Ah, thank you for explaining.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-10, 05:47 PM

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).
Erhm, that isn't the answer as it's actually farther away when it's on the horizon than when it's right above you.

It's the mental model of distance to the things up there, which is basically that everything's on the inside of an upturned shallow bowl, and since the angular size is actually virtually identical and we model it as a lot farther away, the reverse perspective transformation our brain does automatically to compensate for distances makes it look much bigger to us, even though it isn't.

Jim

2011-Oct-11, 01:09 AM

Henrik, have you actually read what Phil has written on the subject?

"It's a joke, son. I say, it's a joke. Joke, that is."

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-11, 01:23 AM

Henrik, have you actually read what Phil has written on the subject?

"It's a joke, son. I say, it's a joke. Joke, that is."
Ehrm, yes.

I'm just really bad at recognizing when deliberate misinformation is a joke. Mainly because I don't understand how anyone can consider lying to be funny.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-11, 03:27 AM

Ehrm, yes.

I'm just really bad at recognizing when deliberate misinformation is a joke. Mainly because I don't understand how anyone can consider lying to be funny.

Most jokes have punchlines that are not the literal truth. It's fiction, not lying.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-11, 03:29 AM

Most jokes consists of more than just the lie.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-11, 03:43 AM

Most jokes consists of more than just the lie.

I have not read the article(s) in question. Is that really all that Phil wrote?

Mr Gorsky

2011-Oct-11, 12:14 PM

Isn't the question of why they used time travel as the premise answered by the name "Brannon Braga" on the production team?

SeanF

2011-Oct-11, 01:41 PM

Henrik, are you talking about Jim's original comment:

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

Or the one you replied to:

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

The original comment was the joke, but it's an inside joke, with the "truth" of it implied. It's no different than somebody saying about a photo, "It must be fake because you can't see the stars!" It's a humorous reference to a fallacy that others employ.

The second comment is neither a joke nor a lie. Phil has written "many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then)." His articles have all been about how it's not true.

eugenek

2011-Oct-11, 07:47 PM

Military small arms have a different design philosophy, and international restrictions than hunting weapons. Military ammo is designed for the most part to disable, not kill. The design philosophy being, that if you kill someone, then they are dead. But if you wound someone, then you are tying up that person. The personnel required to transport the wounded person. And the resources required to care for the wounded person. Hunting rifles, and ammunition are designed to put the animal down as quickly as possible. You don't want to have to track down a wounded animal, or worse have it attack you.
David.

I don't think this is true. I think the "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is an urban myth. In most cases when the military is shooting at something they are trying to make it stop doing what it was doing. Killing an enemy usually accomplishes that goal. The problem with a wounded enemy is they are not dead. A wounded enemy can still shoot back, lob a grenade, press a button or operate a communications device. Additionally, if a unit overtakes an enemy position which has wounded enemy soldiers, those wounded now become the unit's logistical problem. Perhaps even more than had their own side maintained control of them since these wounded would need to be guarded as well.

However, I'm sure there are specific cases where a target is desired alive but shooting said target isn't the best way to achieve that goal. There are very very very few non-serious gunshot wounds. A "wounding" leg shot can kill someone very quickly.

R.A.F.

2011-Oct-11, 09:39 PM

Isn't the question of why they used time travel as the premise answered by the name "Brannon Braga" on the production team?

Nice one.

Another reason not to watch...

Solfe

2011-Oct-12, 12:43 AM

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?

Noclevername

2011-Oct-12, 12:46 AM

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?

Yes and yes.

Solfe

2011-Oct-12, 12:50 AM

Oh, good than I didn't waste hours of my life watching TV, I actually learned something new. :)

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-12, 01:06 AM

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?
Yes, Yes and he authored the weirder episodes of Next Generation as well.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-12, 01:19 AM

If Braga and time travel are involved, expect Nazis to show up at some point.

I don't think this is true. I think the "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is an urban myth. In most cases when the military is shooting at something they are trying to make it stop doing what it was doing. Killing an enemy usually accomplishes that goal. The problem with a wounded enemy is they are not dead. A wounded enemy can still shoot back, lob a grenade, press a button or operate a communications device. Additionally, if a unit overtakes an enemy position which has wounded enemy soldiers, those wounded now become the unit's logistical problem. Perhaps even more than had their own side maintained control of them since these wounded would need to be guarded as well.

However, I'm sure there are specific cases where a target is desired alive but shooting said target isn't the best way to achieve that goal. There are very very very few non-serious gunshot wounds. A "wounding" leg shot can kill someone very quickly.

I have to say tha "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is a bit of a simplification. This philosophy came about during the 60s after studying previous conflicts. Although the people that developed it forgot that during WWII the Japanese used to medicate their wounded and send then into American positions armed with hand grenades. The Vietnamese did much the same thing, they would dope up their wounded and leave them behind with explosives. The M16 round in the 60s was designed to tumble in soft tissue and produce horrific wounds to the point where if they lived, then they would not be of much use in any position. If they eventually died then fine, but in the meantime they would tie up a lot of resources. The tumbling characteristic of the round proved to be a liability in the jungle, the bullet would hit the foliage and start tumbling not hitting much of anything.

David.

eugenek

2011-Oct-12, 02:43 PM

I have to say tha "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is a bit of a simplification. This philosophy came about during the 60s after studying previous conflicts. Although the people that developed it forgot that during WWII the Japanese used to medicate their wounded and send then into American positions armed with hand grenades. The Vietnamese did much the same thing, they would dope up their wounded and leave them behind with explosives. The M16 round in the 60s was designed to tumble in soft tissue and produce horrific wounds to the point where if they lived, then they would not be of much use in any position. If they eventually died then fine, but in the meantime they would tie up a lot of resources. The tumbling characteristic of the round proved to be a liability in the jungle, the bullet would hit the foliage and start tumbling not hitting much of anything.

David.

The M-16 round's tumbling was more a "feature" of the barrel it was shot out of. (Hm, is that sentence grammatically correct?) This feature was eventually removed by adding a few more twists.

I don't think wounding is a military philosophy when it comes to a conventional firefight with small-arms. I'd agree that it is an observation that screaming wounded soldiers may have some advantages over dead soldiers. However, there is no military doctrine, at least in the US, to cause more wounded. The goal is to kill and do it quickly. If a wounded soldier is still moving then he will probably be shot again to make him stop moving. I don't believe the US military has forgotten that some of its enemies aren't keen on surrendering regardless of their physical state or that their concepts of warfare are different. Not too many Japanese soldiers withdrew from a banzai charge carting their wounded away with them. Wounding a soldier with a satchel charge strapped to him doesn't help. Wounding the driver of a very weighed down and suspicious looking vehicle is the wrong decision. Killing as soon as possible is the goal. There are advantages to the enemy having to tend to wounded after the fact but that is more of a bonus rather than a realized goal.

Solfe

2011-Oct-12, 06:43 PM

Wounding sounds more like a losing proposition. If you win the fight, you earn the battlefield and all of the wounded soldiers on both sides. As Eugenek says, wounded people tend to be very upset at the people who shot them.

On the other hand, if your game is to yield the battlefield to your enemy, well, it might slow him down. Which is a pretty lousy way to try and win a war.

SkepticJ

2011-Oct-12, 06:52 PM

I don't know about military guns, but anti-personnel land mines are most certainly designed to maim, not kill. They blow feet off, when a design no larger, and using no more explosive, could kill using shrapnel.

eugenek

2011-Oct-12, 08:58 PM

Back on topic, I did see about 20 minutes of this show a few days ago. It was one where several of the people had amnesia. My thinking was, "Isn't this a new series? They are already going with an amnesia story?" Then I learned that there are apparently other people in this world who appear to have light armored vehicles and don't like the people in the fort. And there is a malcontent in the fort. Who was in charge of putting these people here? Was there an interview process because if so it needs some work.

So, Terra Notever again for me.

Krel

2011-Oct-13, 02:08 AM

I am sorry that I am not explaining this well, it has been a couple of decades since I read the article. It was not military doctrine, but it came from the planers in the administration. These were the same people that altered the design requirement for the M16 because they didn't think that it needed what was specified. That caused all sorts of trouble with the rifle. But the bullet was designed to tumble on impact. It was thought that it would give the bullet a greater degree of incapacitation and lethality.

I unfortunately missed the last episode. I set my recorder, but there was a baseball game that ran long, and only got the first few minutes.

One thing I have noticed it that there is a serious lack of personal weapons. These people live in a place where practically everything wants to eat them. The stockade keeps out the big dinos, but what about the small carnivores? It has been shown that people can slip through the stockade, so you know that small carnivores can too. You would thing that everyone would be carrying shotguns, or at least a pistol. You would think that those homes would be a bit more sturdy as well. They don't look like they would standup that well in a good storm.

David.

DukePaul

2011-Oct-13, 06:38 AM

Back on topic. It seems that Terra Novacaine is able to communicate with the future and that they seem to have a problem with a rebel group who holds the "only" source of iron(meteoric). Hmmmm, "calling future Earth send us soldiers not stupid teenagers!!!"
And it was funny when the group was so impressed with a box of ore (that one man was able to hold straight out in his arms) for medicine and future thingies. Me great trader, next time try beads and ribbons. I love the buffet they set out each day in the open that doesn't seem to attract any bugs or proto-mammals or "DINOSAURS!" I guess the sense of smell has yet to be evolved yet. Oh and the baseball game that preempted, I first thought was the camp's first attempt getting the iron ore through competitive sports but the lack of smug teenagers and dinos threw me off.

DukePaul

2011-Oct-13, 07:40 AM

Oh and lets talk about the beautiful green-loving windmills you see turning so greenfully in the camp. First, that camp seems to be located in a low area tightly surrounded by heavily forested hills. I'm no expert but I don't believe that would be a good location for wind generation capability. Also those windmills would require very large capacity cranes to lift the components, where are they? Also did they buy the windmills in future France and ship them to past Earth? Questions, questions I have.

Van Rijn

2011-Oct-13, 09:16 AM

Picky, picky, picky.

Actually, I haven't watched an episode because time travel stories often annoy me, it doesn't sound like this is very good, and I doubt it will last very long.

Back on topic. It seems that Terra Novacaine is able to communicate with the future and that they seem to have a problem with a rebel group who holds the "only" source of iron(meteoric). Hmmmm, "calling future Earth send us soldiers not stupid teenagers!!!"

So is this all supposed to be the same timeline? No multiworld/multiple timeline thing? Or do they bother to explain that?

If it is the same timeline, that might be the reason they picked that time: There's a known event later than that will destroy most life and have major surface effects, so with a bit of care they could avoid things that would be obvious today.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Oct-13, 12:54 PM

Back on topic. It seems that Terra Novacaine is able to communicate with the future and that they seem to have a problem with a rebel group who holds the "only" source of iron(meteoric). Hmmmm, "calling future Earth send us soldiers not stupid teenagers!!!"
Don't send stupid teenagers, send a couple of middle-aged engineers who are into hardcore reenactment.

Clay, charcoal(or any other source of coal) and ocher(or almost any other iron ore, but ocher has the advantage that it's found in streams without needing digging) is enough to bootstrap the industrial revolution.

Jim

2011-Oct-13, 04:36 PM

Different time line (as explained in the pilot).

Also explained - or at least mentioned - in the pilot is that the renegade camp has supporters in the future. (There is some sort of Grand Scheme which has yet to be explained.) It's those supporters who got them past the vetting.

And don't forget, this was not intended to be a highly realistic series. (I hope no one is surprised at that... time travel, dinosaurs.) It's supposed to show Utopia, an idealic and idyllic community. So, of course, the dinosaurs are well-behaved enough to stay out of the compound and the insects leave the pickinicks alone and the teenagers are all attractive and telemarketing hasn't been invented yet.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-13, 05:42 PM

And don't forget, this was not intended to be a highly realistic series.

Braga's involvement already told us that. His characters act nothing like real people. They have characteristics rather than personalities; otherwise they are puppets of the plot's demands.

TheBrett

2011-Oct-20, 05:07 PM

Don't send stupid teenagers, send a couple of middle-aged engineers who are into hardcore reenactment.

Clay, charcoal(or any other source of coal) and ocher(or almost any other iron ore, but ocher has the advantage that it's found in streams without needing digging) is enough to bootstrap the industrial revolution.

They're not trying to re-build industrial civilization in the past/other timeline's past - they're trying to found a colony that won't make the mistakes made back on Earth.

Besides, we don't know how good their location is in terms of resources. It could be that they're simply too far from in-ground sources of coal and iron to make it practical, so they have to rely on trading with the Sixers for meteoric iron that they've found.

Solfe

2011-Oct-21, 07:28 PM

This may be a semi-obvious question, but if they are in a completely different timeline and they got to that time line using a completely natural process, why aren't they trying to:
A) find another natural occurring rift in space time
B) start a technologically advanced civilization based firmly on the complete annihilation of the environment.
C) once this environment is toast, move on to the next and repeat.

AstroFilmmaker

2011-Oct-21, 08:30 PM

I'm not really that picky when it comes to things making perfect sense. Everyone does things differently, and there may be reasonings for choices (such as what gun to use, or how to build their fence) that not everyone realizes. Plus films and tv are able to take liberties, it's just meant to be fun.

That said, I had high hopes for this series and caught every episode, but it's missing something. The main dad character needs to be a lot more interesting, dynamic, something. Plus they're approaching the series episodically, and foollowing a lot of tired scifi fantasy cliches. They claim it's a replacement for lost, but I'm not seeing it. There's very little mystery and hardly any development from episode to episode.

Solfe

2011-Oct-22, 01:19 AM

I finally put my finger on what this show is - It is a cross between Orson Scott Card's "Pastwatch", Julian May's Saga of Pliocene Exile and Earth2.

ABR.

2011-Oct-22, 01:57 AM

Ha! When I saw the first trailer for Terra Nova, my first thought was that it was an adaptation of the Julian May books.

Solfe

2011-Oct-22, 02:44 AM

I loved that series. I was always kind of amazed how the author went and linked 2 (or maybe 3?) series together.

Noclevername

2011-Oct-22, 12:45 PM

And now if that gets turned into a TV show most people will think it's a rip-off of TN. Thus making yet another franchise unuseable. Thanks again, Braga!

Doodler

2011-Oct-24, 03:12 AM

The meteoric iron could be necessary for their power systems. They did say there were issues with one dino species for whom nickel was a catnip, and metallic meteors tend to be nickel/ferrous.

Maybe they dropped that plot point a bit subtlely.

Solfe

2011-Oct-25, 04:41 AM

Ok, I have watched the first two episodes. I do like Jason O'Mara, but how does this guy keep jumping in to the most ill-thought out shows? He was actually had an amusing character in Grey's Anatomy. He tried to pet a bear and got his whole family mauled, of course he was hurt pretty bad but not everyone he knew was rooting for him to get better.

Do these people realize that you should not leave food sitting out when wild animals are about? And where exactly are they getting this food, the forest? Exactly where did they get the idea that food is free for the taking? I would be afraid whatever normally eats that food would want it back.

As far as weapons go, these guys are armed for hunting people, not dinos. They need heavier guns like elephant guns or shot guns with bird shot. Flame throwers might be better than guns vs. dinos, especially flying ones. RPG's would be handy too. Full body armor that actually covers the eyes, face, and hands would be more practical than the get ups these guys wear. No need for the heavy metal stuff, a heavily stranded clothe with plastics and padding might be better, like those chain saw protective chaps.

In fact they might have had the best idea with using the pheromones, better not to fight giant creatures that tend to rove in flocks, pods, herds, etc.

korbindallis

2012-Mar-03, 07:02 AM

his takes place about 60 million years ago, eh?
wiki says 85 million years into Earth's Cretaceous past

you got 20 million years before the K/T event

AKONI

2012-Mar-03, 07:27 PM

What would be cooler, and deliciously ironic, have them arrive at a time a year before the KT impact.

They could end the show with a bang. :)

I turned it off the moment I realized they were living with dinosaurs simply because I thought... We'll that asteroid is going to kill them all so I already know how it's going to end.

schlaugh

2012-Mar-06, 09:21 PM

And now it's Terra Gone-a.

Guess we'll likely never find out what the Badlands were all about.

Fox has cancelled prehistoric dino drama "Terra Nova" after one season, ending months of will-they-or-won't-they speculation. Studio 20th Century Fox TV, however, says they fight "Terra Nova's" extinction event by shopping the series to other networks.

A small part of me is sad, only because of the interesting premise. Even other great shows like ST:TNG and B-5 had slow starts, so who knows. I remember one point made was that they had spent a bunch of money to make all the sets to "guarantee" the season. So much for that.

Van Rijn

2012-Mar-07, 01:08 AM

I was hearing too many complaints about the show, and anyway, I've reached the point where I wait to see if a show's going to continue before getting caught up in it. Especially if it's a science fiction show on Fox. (I just noticed from that article that Alcatraz was a science fiction show - I hadn't realized that, nor had I noticed it already had aired, and it's already cancelled.)

whimsyfree

2012-Mar-07, 12:12 PM

I still can't buy it over O'Neill colonies to escape a polluted Earth.

One advantage of time travel is they can change things so that humans don't evolve. Pollution problem solved.

Solfe

2012-Mar-10, 08:24 PM

Poor Jason O'Meara. He hasn't made it to the second season of anything. I can't say I liked Terra Nova, but I do like Jason O'Meara. I hope he finds something better.

By way of advice, I offer Mr. O'Meara the following: Don't touch anything Star Trek or BSG themed.

Doodler

2012-Mar-12, 03:05 PM

Ya know what's really screwed up? FOX made money off Terra Nova. Despite the insane production costs, the show was actually in the black. Pity, I may stand almost alone in liking it, but I will stand by it.

Jim

2012-Mar-12, 04:25 PM

I enjoyed it. Some of it was a bit far-out, and some of it was a bit cheesy, but it was a fun show.

I especially liked the bit where O'Meara's character took a T-Rex into the future. That'll larn 'em to mess around with the past!

Nick Theodorakis

2012-Mar-12, 05:12 PM

Was it a T. rex? I thought it was a carnotaur.

Nick

Trantor

2012-Mar-12, 05:30 PM

It was a bit cheesy at times, but it was entertaining compared to some of the junk on tv these days. Kind of sad that it got cancelled; I was thinking that by the second season, we would get to see some sleestacks.

whimsyfree

2012-Mar-13, 12:34 AM

This one-way time-portal to the distant past trope sounds like the one in the Saga of Pliocene Exile by Julian May
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_Pliocene_Exile

I haven't read it but it sounds a little derivative. I vaguely recall an old short story where prisoners were sent to exile in the remote past. Some time around the Silurian. They had separate camps separated by millions of years for the male and female prisoners to stop them from breeding and creating their own civilization. Anyone remember it?

Rhaedas

2012-Mar-13, 03:42 AM

Hawksbill Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawksbill_Station) by Robert Silverberg

Scriitor

2012-Mar-13, 05:05 AM

I was thinking that by the second season, we would get to see some sleestacks.